This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit

[I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at
Sat Dec 7 11:22:13 CET 2013

Good morning 

I agree with Nick; let us stay positive; Fadi made it very clear (in
numerous public sessions at IG and at ICANN 48) that we are all in this
together.  Some trust has been lost in the Internet Governance model and it
falls on all of us to do what we can to preserve the model we believe in.
ICANN's mission is very much tied to a single, open, secure and
interoperable Internet and it is not, therefore, sup rising that we should
be involved in a desire to preserve such.



From:  Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at>
Date:  Saturday, December 7, 2013 2:34 AM
To:  John Curran <jcurran at>, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at>
Cc:  "i-coordination at" <i-coordination at>
Subject:  Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee &
Brazil Meeting Organising commitees

+1. Do we really need more suspicions of one another - when it is easy to
just ask a question?

John Curran <jcurran at> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2013, at 3:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at> wrote:
>>  I wonder how and when did Fadi receive a mandate to move out beyond
>>  ICANN and step into the political economy space of Internet Governance
>>  and multilateral activities which led to interventions with a
>>  government that was actually also a signatory of the WCIT outcome
>>  document? Does this also assert that ICANN is trying to move beyond
>>  its mandate into an ITU attempted take over of the Internet Governance
>>  space that was attempted at the WCIT?
> If you wish to know about ICANN's "mandate" or plans in this area,
> have you considered asking Fadi?
>>  If 1Net is a completely
>> different and separate space from the
>>  Montevideo assertion then I would like to learn how did this gap
>>  evolve in the first place where the need for such a coalition was
>>  felt?
> 1net is not a completely different and separate space from the
> Montevideo Statement.  1net trying to further those goals, and
> its formation was discussed in Montevideo and further discussed
> at several sessions at the Bali IGF. The Brazil meeting was not
> discussed at the Montevideo meeting, nor was it part of the
> statement released afterward.
>>  My interest comes from the fact that about 90% of the people
>>  involved in this group's mailing list in the first month of its
>>  creation are all either IGF MAG members or ICANN community
>>  members....and if they have felt that the IGF or ICANN settings a!
>>  nd
>> meetings are insufficient to address their prevailing concerns, why
>>  haven't they resigned and left the IGF MAG or ICANN AC/OC's and taken
>>  on this quote n quote "movement"?
> As I see it, 1net does not need to displace or preempt any existing
> activities in the Internet governance space, and in fact, could be
> a useful supplement to existing IGF activities.  Many of us are very
> strong supporters of IGF and don't see that changing - can you explain
> why you view this as an "either/or" proposition?
> Thanks!
> /John
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at

Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the I-coordination mailing list